PEOPLE v ABARCAGR No. 74433

FACTS

Khingsley Paul Koh and the wife of accused Francisco Abarca, Jenny, had illicit relationship. The illicit relationship apparently began while the accused was in Manila reviewing for the 1983 Bar examinations and his wife was left behind in their residence in Tacloban.One day, upon reaching home from his fathers house, the accused found Jenny and Khingsley Koh in the act of sexual intercourse. Jenny and Koh noticed the accused, the wife pushed Koh who got his revolver and the accused who was then peeping above the built-in cabinet in their room jumped and ran away.The accused went to look for a firearm at Tacloban City and got an M-16 rifle from C2C Arturo Talbo, Going back, he proceeded to the "mahjong session" and fired at Kingsley Koh three times with his rifle. Arnold and Lina Amparado who were occupying a room adjacent to the room where Koh was playing mahjong were also hit by the shots fired by the accused. Kingsley Koh died instantaneously of cardiorespiratory arrest due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of multiple gunshot wounds on the head, trunk and abdomen. Arnold Amparado was hospitalized and operated on in the kidney to remove a bullet. His wife, Lina Amparado, was also treated in the hospital as she was hit by bullet fragments. The court found him guilty of the complex crime of murder with double frustrated murder.

ISSUE

Whether or not Abarca should be guilty of the crime charged to him

HELDNo. Article 247 of the RPC must be applied in the instant case.

ART. 247.Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances. Any legally married person who, having surprised his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person, shall kill any of them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious physical injury, shall suffer the penalty ofdestierro.

If he shall inflict upon them physical injuries of any other kind, he shall be exempt from punishment.

These rules shall be applicable, under the same circumstances, to parents with respect to their daughters under eighteen years of age, and their seducers, while the daughters are living with their parents.

Any person who shall promote or facilitate prostitution of his wife or daughter, or shall otherwise have consented to the infidelity of the other spouse shall not be entitled to the benefits of this article.

Article 247 prescribes the following elements: (1) that a legally married person surprises his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person; and (2) that he kills any of them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter.

These elements are present in this case. Though quite a length of time, about one hour, had passed between the time the accused-appellant discovered his wife having sexual intercourse with the victim and the time the latter was actually shot, the shooting must be understood to be the continuation of the pursuit of the victim by the accused-appellant. The Revised Penal Code, in requiring that the accused "shall kill any of them or both of them . . . immediately" after surprising his spouse in the act of intercourse, does not say that he should commit the killing instantly thereafter. It only requires that the death caused be the proximate result of the outrage overwhelming the accused after chancing upon his spouse in the basest act of infidelity. But the killing should have been actually motivated by the same blind impulse, and must not have been influenced by external factors. The killing must be the direct by-product of the accused's rage.

When it comes to the liability of the accused-appellant for the injuries suffered by Lina Amparado and Arnold Amparado, we cannot therefore hold the accused liable. This does not mean, however, that the accused-appellant is totally free from any responsibility. Granting the fact that he was not performing an illegal act when he fired shots at the victim, he cannot be said to be entirely without fault.

PEOPLE v ULEPGR No. L-36858

FACTSOn May 21, 1970, at nine o'clock in the evening, in San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte, one Asuncion Pablo Ulep died as a result of physical injuries inflicted upon her on that very day by her husband, accused Macario Ulep. The following day, the Chief of Police of San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte received a report of the said death of Asuncion Pablo who allegedly died of a heart attack. The Chief of Police and the Rural Health Officer went to the house of the deceased and there they saw the body on a bamboo bed surrounded by relatives, friends, and the husband of the deceased, Macario. The Chief of Police suggested that an autopsy be conducted but the husband refused to allow the same. However, at the behest of the daughter, the request for an autopsy was made shortly before the burial. The cause of death was cardiac arrest and primary shock.Two weeks after the burial, Macario Ulep admitted that he caused the death of his wife by elbowing her because his wife was then drunk and was uttering indecent words. In another investigation, he reiterated that the cause of death of his wife was his elbowing her on her breast.

Ulep retracted his statement in court by narrating that more than a year before that, and while his wife went to have their palay milled, their bullcart loaded with sacks of rice turned upside down and pinned his wife on her breast. With the pain in her chest, she was treated by a country quack doctor or "arbularyo."

ISSUE

Whether or not Macario Ulep should be liable for the death of his wife, Asuncion Ulep

HELD

Yes. Macario presented a witness to prove that sometime in February or March, 1969 his wife was pinned down by a sack of rice and the side portion of a bullcart and was attended to by a town quack doctor called anarbularyo. This witness said that two (2) ribs on each side of the chest were fractured, without stating which particular ribs were so affected.

First, there were no contusions on the chest of the victim. This indicates that the elbow blows were not of sufficient force to fracture the ribs. This is so because a fracture necessarily results in the extravasation of blood in the fractured area and it is the extravasated blood that causes the swelling or contusion.

Second, even on the theory that fractures of the ribs as that found by Dr. Bonoan were present, the same could have not caused cardiac arrest and primary shock. This is so because only extravasated blood was present around the immediate area of the fractures, This means that the fractures were not depressed or that the fractured ends did not cave-in, so as to injure the heart and impede its functions to cause cardiac arrest.

And third, although the pleura or thoracic cavity was lacerated at the points of fracture, the same could not have caused cardiac arrest or primary shock because the lacerations were limited to the pleura. Even if the victim is suffering from an internal ailment, liver or heart disease, or tuberculosis, if the blow delivered by the accused

(a) is the efficient cause of death; or

(b) accelerated his death; or

(c) is the proximate cause of death; then there is criminal liability.

Apropos to all these is that time-respected doctrine: "He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused." This is the rationale in Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code. Even though the victim may have been previously affected by some internal malady, yet if the blow with the fist or foot accelerated death, he who caused such acceleration is responsible for the death as the result of an injury willfully and unlawfully inflicted.There is that clear and categorical showing that on the appellant fell the blame for these in human acts on his wife. He should answer for her tragic death.